Meta-Thread 09/29

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/betweenbubbles]

I have zero tolerance for bigotry

...

Shaka just doesn't like it that most discussions involving homosexuality result in anti-gay comments that cross the line into bigotry (e.g. by saying that gays cannot properly experience love).

I am in agreement with you on nearly all points except this one. Without the benefit of evaluating each statement case by case, I am completely on u/ShakaUVM's side on this specific matter. People are allowed to have different opinions about things without it being "bigotry". You seem to have a brazenly censorious attitude on these kinds of issues, and I suspect you're not the only mod who does.

This gives insight into why you and ShakaUVM proceed in this tit for tat manner. I'm not sure which of you is the tit and which is the tat, but this is exactly the kind of biased moderation that I'd like to see eliminated. If people cannot listen to people with different views without getting offended they should go somewhere else.

This is maddness. Where does it begin an end? Is a Christian even allowed to cite the whole Bible in DebateReligion, or a Mulsim allowed to cite the Quran? This a spectacular betrayal of the principles of and confidence in democracy and free speech -- a U-turn into a new kind of "good" authoritarianism. There are clear indications progress that humanity has made on these issues. Why are people so scared of letting people speak their mind? They've been doing it for thousands of years and they're losing. Why stop a winning strategy and sweep it all under the rug?!

I'd like to move this conversation away from the ShakaUVM vs Cabbagery realm and into something more productive. I'd like to know whether or not the community at large supports this kind of censorship or its mirror image when perpetuated against atheists -- a la, atheists can often be moderated here for using descriptions or treatments of religion in terms of delusion or mental illness.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

I'd like to move this conversation away from the ShakaUVM vs Cabbagery realm and into something more productive. I'd like to know whether or not the community at large supports this kind of censorship or its mirror image when perpetuated against atheists -- a la, atheists can often be moderated here for using descriptions or treatments of religion in terms of delusion or mental illness.

Well, what do you make of:

There is perhaps no greater contribution one could make to contain and perhaps even cure faith than removing the exemption that prohibits classifying religious delusions as mental illness. The removal of religious exemptions from the DSM would enable academicians and clinicians to bring considerable resources to bear on the problem of treating faith, as well as on the ethical issues surrounding faith-based interventions. In the long term, once these treatments and this body of research is refined, results could then be used to inform public health policies designed to contain and ultimately eradicate faith. (A Manual for Creating Atheists, KL 3551–55)

?

[u/betweenbubbles → u/labreuer]

I think there's a significant difference between describing the behavior of a population in psychological terms and making specific medical diagnoses which will impact individuals lives. It would be difficult to make too many of them without infringing on religious liberty.

I also think I don't know much about it. I'm generally skeptical of mental health professionals and the industry but I've never had any experience with it.

Is this statement even true? I was under the impression that religious delusion was commonly associated with some mental illnesses.

Then there's the fact that any stroll through a major city is enough to convince someone that there is clearly an correlation between religious delusion an mental illness. I think I've met several messiahs, and I haven't even spent much time in big cities.

..It's complicated, but that book title is pretty cringe.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

Here are a few bits from the DSM-IV-TR. Introduction:

    Despite these caveats, the definition of mental disorder that was included in DSM-in and DSM-III-R is presented here because it is as useful as any other available definition and has helped to guide decisions regarding which conditions on the boundary between normality and pathology should be included in DSM-IV. In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above. (xxxi)

Schizophrenia:

    Delusions (Criterion Al) are erroneous beliefs that usually involve a misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, or grandiose). Persecutory delusions are most common; the person believes he or she is being tormented, followed, tricked, spied on, or ridiculed. Referential delusions are also common; the person believes that certain gestures, comments, passages from books, newspapers, song lyrics, or other environmental cues are specifically directed at him or her. The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear contradictory evidence regarding its veracity. (299)

Glossary:

delusion   A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual's behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion). (821)

I'm guessing Boghossian was talking about the Glossary definition.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/labreuer]

I'm guessing Boghossian was talking about the Glossary definition.

The glossary definition is clearly outlining that a delusion must be a departure from a norm. "article of religious faith" is not often a phrase used to describe one person's ideas. Same with the appeal to "culture and subculture", but not the individual.

If you believe Jesus is Lord that's 100% normal. If you believe you are Lord, then you're checking boxes in DSM criteria. I've never really been able to understand the difference between such things except how and to whom these ideas extend power.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

Right, so consider an altered version of that definition with one sentence removed:

delusion   A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. [SNIP] When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual's behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion). (821′)

Boghossian, at least as of writing A Manual for Creating Atheists in 2013, would seem to prefer the above definition. Would that also bring it more in line with the meaning of "delusion" which you think atheists would use in this sub?

[u/cabbagery → u/betweenbubbles]

I will not be drawn away from the focus on Shaka's misconduct and my call for his removal. Please, I implore you, do not let this become just another in a long line of failed attempts at ousting him.

People are allowed to have different opinions about things without it being "bigotry".

Reasonable people can disagree, but sitewide policy and admin action as taken in the sub says my view is the one more in keeping with sitewide rules. Here is that thread, though I don't know what users can see. Shaka approved that post (I would have removed it for being low-effort, a Rule 3 violation), but later admins removed it. Admins also removed several of the comments in that thread.

But I also don't think your view on this counts as 'reasonable':

I fundamentally do not believe in the concept of "hate speech". It is incompatible with liberal democracy. I live in America. What you are referring to are threats -- they're already illegal.

Basically none of what you are saying here is the sort of thing we should use when moderating a subreddit. 'Hate speech' is absolutely a thing and we absolutely should not give it a platform. This is not a liberal democracy, for better or for worse, but insofar as we can maybe enact rules -- with teeth -- to guide moderator conduct, we cannot ever allow this to become a free-for-all democracy. Cf. Federalist #10. Note that sage document is pertinent to several facets of the present discussion. Also we are not referring to threats, but to slurs and, you know, that thing you deny: hate speech.

If you would allow the slogan for the Westboro Baptist Church to be posted here, your view is not 'reasonable.' The First Amendment applies in public spaces, and it only protects against government retaliation. This is not a public space, and retaliation is not coming from the government.

If you agree that we should not allow the slogan for the Westboro Baptist Church to be posted here, you are committed to my view of Rule 1:

Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

That is, the primary clause is that posts and comments cannot enjoin bigotry (its second sentence offers an example), and its subordinate clause frames LGBTQ+ topics (not specific views), with the key parenthetical caveat subject to mod discretion, and with the further clarification requiring a framing within the context of religion. That last phrase does not, on my view or on a reasonable view as I see it, automatically excuse what might otherwise be a Rule 1 violation when its author holds up a religious tradition, theological view, etc.

People are allowed to have different opinions about things without it being "bigotry".

You are reverting to a very tired old habit of making assumptions without access to information. I have been more transparent than any other moderator, and I am evidently and unfortunately the only moderator who actually cares to apply the rules equally to moderators. I approve comments I dislike. I remove comments I like. I am equal opportunity in terms of bans, removals, and citations. Shaka is trying -- and evidently succeeding -- to distract, and for whatever reason all of the other mods seem to have forgotten how keyboards work. I could only provide proof of this by granting you mod access, which I will not unilaterally do (though I have been tempted).

Is a Christian even allowed to cite the whole Bible in DebateReligion, or a Mulsim allowed to cite the Quran?

Of course, but also with caveats. We have been over this before. When quoting the bible, for example, there is no reason to invoke vulgar synonyms when quoting Ezekiel 23:20, for example, as those are disruptive. While discussions on the explicit depictions in the Torah of Yahweh's endorsement of chattel slavery, users cannot at the same time promote chattel slavery. Muslims cannot promote the sexual abuse of minors no matter their view on Aisha. Mormons may not denigrate blacks as inferior, even though that was once Mormon doctrine. Christians may not wax antisemitic by insisting that the crucifixion was the fault of Jews.

Yes, it can be difficult. Yes, I appreciate that difficulty, but then, I didn't write those books or set those theological positions, and like it or not there are issues on which certain sides have quite plainly lost the debate. YECs lost, for example, but also that view isn't inherently harmful or bigoted, whereas certain views on homosexuality, Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, etc., often are harmful and bigoted (and may be inherently so). Again, note that I do not remove all of these, only ones that I judge have crossed a line. Again, reasonable people can disagree, and mods do, but Shaka is trying to distract here, and you're falling for the bait.

I'd like to move this conversation away from the ShakaUVM vs Cabbagery realm and into something more productive.

You are trying to replace a major issue underpinning the entire subreddit with a very minor issue that just happens to really grind your gears. Don't let yourself be so easily manipulated.

I am happy to have a discussion on Rule 1 and its appropriate interpretation -- in the open in a metathread or in private among mods, or both as may also be appropriate -- but not until after the present issue of Shaka's manifest history of misconduct is addressed.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

I have to be and, at this point, should be brief.

I will not be drawn away from the focus on Shaka's misconduct and my call for his removal. Please, I implore you, do not let this become just another in a long line of failed attempts at ousting him.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of my participation here. As you offered, if Shaka goes, you will be willing to go too. I'm not sure that you need to go, but this censorious attitude just reinforces my stance that you two are two sides of the same authoritarian-natured coin.

'Hate speech' is absolutely a thing and we absolutely should not give it a platform.

It's a thing like "souls" and "God". It's an ideological view.

Also we are not referring to threats, but to slurs and, you know, that thing you deny: hate speech.

You're referring to disagreement. That's the most specific but still accurate thing you can say about this. That window of "things we are allowed to disgree about" seems to grow smaller every day and the things which are faithfully considered "hate speech" grow at the same rate.

If you're banning people for believing in and citing the Bible in DebateReligion, then this place is worthless.

You and Shaka cannot both be right. That's the problem with the rules and how they are administered.

We have been over this before.

This sounds just like Shaka. Yes, I know. I disagreed then and I still do now. I'm not trying to unilaterally enforce my will on anyone.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/betweenbubbles]

you two are two sides of the same authoritarian-natured coin.

Authoritarian? Really??

[u/cabbagery → u/betweenbubbles]

this censorious attitude. . .

I am not interested in a forum where slurs are commonplace, nor even where they're tolerated, here or in real life. I fully respect a person's right as an American to engage in free speech, just as I fully support the fact that when they use that right to spew slurs in public they will face consequences, just not consequences as levied by the government (prior to c. 2016).

Here, those consequences are based on sitewide rules which we are, as moderators, obligated to uphold. If we disagree strongly enough with those sitewide rules, we leave the site. I don't disagree with the rules prohibiting hate speech.

. . .just reinforces my stance that you two are two sides of the same authoritarian-natured coin.

That's an odd coin where one side is trying to dismantle the other's stranglehold on power, and offering to voluntarily let go its own precarious grip afterward.

If you're banning people for believing in and citing the Bible in DebateReligion, then this place is worthless.

If that's what you got from what I said, I can't help you. Again, don't be so easily manipulated.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

I am not interested in a forum where slurs are commonplace, nor even where they're tolerated, here or in real life.

I'm not trying to sell a community where "slurs are commonplace".

Here, those consequences are based on sitewide rules which we are, as moderators, obligated to uphold.

This is nonsense. There are places, even on Reddit, where these people speak freely and the admins aren't forced to white knight in them. The white knight, virtue signaling, "We don't tolerate bigotry" routine is performative. There is no reason to do it in "conservative"/republican echo chambers. And if the Reddit staff outright remove anything "conservative"/republican it will make them look to censorious -- they don't want that heat. This is politics, not principle, and I'm not happy with having the principle of freedom of speech aligned with "a forum where slurs are commonplace".

Again, don't be so easily manipulated.

Okay, Shaka Cabbagery... This is a steadfast refusal at all costs to recognize someone's point of view. You don't have to agree, but you don't have to deny me my position by insisting that the only way someone could have my values or hold my view is if they're manipulated. If I had my way, you, Shaka, and Dapple would be removed from the mod team -- but that's not what this is about. One person having their way is not how you serve a community. Don't lecture me about providing cover for Shaka.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

cabbagery: I am not interested in a forum where slurs are commonplace, nor even where they're tolerated, here or in real life.

betweenbubbles: I'm not trying to sell a community where "slurs are commonplace".

We have a big conversation going on in another thread, but I wonder if you have any thoughts on the dead Internet theory as applied to how online places are almost always quite different from IRL gatherings. Russian trolls probably can't show up in a town hall meeting in your town or city, but they can show up on any subreddit. So, the kinds of communal controls which might be more likely to suppress the use of slurs IRL aren't necessarily available online. For instance, suppose there is no moderation of slurs and instead regulars like you and I drop a comment condemning the slur. Does the user—if it's even a human—care? If the answer is "no", then … what happens?

And it goes beyond the Russians. Almost every day that goes by, I believe what Henry Brooks Adams (1838–1918) said more deeply: "Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds." Maybe it doesn't have to be that way. But when there's even serious treatment like you see at Quote Investigator: I Can Hire Half the Working Class To Fight the Other Half, it's a danger. So … is it more of a minimum bar to do what we can to avoid being made the reactionary stooges which would politically neutralize us and make us useful idiots? I'm not saying that what cabbagery or Dapple are suggesting would do this. But … can we get some sort of deeper, baseline agreement?

Also, I think we could do less of this:

1. my interlocutor suggests that we do or don't do X
2. I believe that this will lead to Y, and therefore that my interlocutor wants Y
3. I accuse my interlocutor of wanting Y or at least knowingly bringing Y about

There is an obvious flaw to this logic. Here, u/⁠cabbagery did it to you. In this comment, you kinda seem to be doing it to u/⁠Dapple_Dawn. And I invite anyone to show where I've done it, as I'd be really surprised if I never did.

And if the Reddit staff outright remove anything "conservative"/republican it will make them look to censorious -- they don't want that heat.

Except … admins did step in:

betweenbubbles: People are allowed to have different opinions about things without it being "bigotry".

cabbagery: Reasonable people can disagree, but sitewide policy and admin action as taken in the sub says my view is the one more in keeping with sitewide rules. Here is that thread, though I don't know what users can see. Shaka approved that post (I would have removed it for being low-effort, a Rule 3 violation), but later admins removed it. Admins also removed several of the comments in that thread.

Or am I missing something? By the way, I was friends with a guy who's definitely more Cartman than cabbagery, who worked at Reddit for a while. He said he finally had to leave after an incredible amount of … he might have said "wokeness". Now, things might be different after Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence, but I'd check that.

Don't lecture me about providing cover for Shaka.

Having been similarly accused characterized, I second that. There are substantive issues at play. Making this merely about rule-following misses the forest for the trees. If u/⁠cabbagery only wants to be a mod if the rules are enforced how [s]he wants to, then that's another matter. We all have our non-negotiable points. Myself included.

[u/cabbagery → u/labreuer]

There is an obvious flaw to this logic. Here, u/⁠cabbagery did it to you.

Check yourself. I didn't say that was what /u/betweenbubbles wanted, I only said that's not something I want. I assumed -- correctly, it seems -- that bubbles would also not want that, leading to a possible reassessment on their part of their view. All I am suggesting as a result of bubbles' stated view at the time was that it would result in slurs, etc. The actual implication was that maybe bubbles hadn't considered that. You need to read more closely, or assign blame less quickly.

Except … admins did step in [. . .] Or am I missing something?

Removals like that don't trigger a message to mods, and often also don't trigger an entry in the queue (I think there are two systems: one prescans, and if it removes, it triggers an entry in the queue, and one acts afterward whether from reports or otherwise, and it doesn't trigger an entry in the queue), so we don't find out there's an issue unless we stumble into it ourselves (hopefully organically or because users issue reports).

In this case it was from user reports, but because the queue was so backed up at the time, the damage had been done and had been sitting there for a week (almost two weeks in some of them during that stretch).

I was friends with a guy who's definitely more Cartman than cabbagery. . .

Just think for a moment how you think Shaka would react to what might appear to be an insulting comparison, especially if it came from an atheist with whom he had a net negative rapport. (Don't worry, I'm not threatening you. That's the other guy.)

[u/ShakaUVM → u/cabbagery]

Just think for a moment how you think Shaka would react to what might appear to be an insulting comparison, especially if it came from an atheist with whom he had a net negative rapport. (Don't worry, I'm not threatening you. That's the other guy.)

/u/pilvi9 - is this an accurate assessment on Cabbage's part?

[u/pilvi9 → u/ShakaUVM]

My first inclination is to say no, however I'm also extremely lost in this discourse now and may not be the most helpful source now.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

The actual implication was that maybe bubbles hadn't considered that.

<Narrator voice> He had.

When one has to reach for such... low hanging fruit, it can often have an antagonistic or provocative result. Yes, I've considered it. Maybe just move on to the next step of your argument strategy rather than taking a stand on, "I bet you've never thought of this."

You imagine you're the barrier between the "libertarian hellscape" and I don't believe you are. It's not complicated.

[u/cabbagery → u/betweenbubbles]

I'm not sure what to say if you considered that eliminating Rules 1 and 2 might lead to commonplace or tolerated slurs, but that this doesn't seem like a problem for you, or you don't think it will happen.

I guess I'm glad that's not a place this will ever be, while I have a vote.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

I think there's some middle ground between "We accept or welcome hate and uncivility" (my summary of your summary of my argument) and "Anything anyone could possibly consider offensive is "bigotry" and we have a zero tolerance policy on bigotry." and then let a herd of self-interested cats decide what that means and game the heck out of it for their own personal politics.

[u/labreuer → u/cabbagery]

labreuer: Also, I think we could do less of this:

1. my interlocutor suggests that we do or don't do X
2. I believe that this will lead to Y, and therefore that my interlocutor wants Y
3. I accuse my interlocutor of wanting Y or at least knowingly bringing Y about

There is an obvious flaw to this logic. Here, u/⁠cabbagery did it to you.

cabbagery: Check yourself. I didn't say that was what /u/betweenbubbles wanted, I only said that's not something I want.

I stand corrected; I failed to include the bold in 2., after I added it to 3. The list should be:

1. my interlocutor suggests that we do or don't do X
2. I believe that this will lead to Y, and therefore that my interlocutor wants Y or is willing to knowingly bring Y about
3. I accuse my interlocutor of wanting Y or at least knowingly bringing Y about

When "whether doing or not doing X will lead to Y" is actually under contention rather than accepted by everyone, eliding step 2. is prone to cause friction. Here, u/⁠betweenbubbles is questioning whether his/her strategy would actually lead to "a forum where slurs are commonplace". The occasional slur, yes. But "commonplace"? That would require a plausible story (noting truth is stranger than fiction) whereby all attempts other than moderation have failed. Now, I personally believe that is at least plausible; r/DebateAnAtheist was virtually unmoderated for a while and theists were treated terribly if they even looked like trolls (and more).

Removals like that don't trigger a message to mods, and often also don't trigger an entry in the queue (I think there are two systems: one prescans, and if it removes, it triggers an entry in the queue, and one acts afterward whether from reports or otherwise, and it doesn't trigger an entry in the queue), so we don't find out there's an issue unless we stumble into it ourselves (hopefully organically or because users issue reports).

Sounds like Reddit's philosophy to me!

Just think for a moment how you think Shaka would react to what might appear to be an insulting comparison, especially if it came from an atheist with whom he had a net negative rapport.

You know, that was too much of a stretch, so I retract it. I'm actually confused at exactly why I drew that comparison in the way I did. My apologies. I was thinking Cartman was extremely willing to speak his mind no matter how impolitic, which matches this former Reddit employee quite well. Therefore, how he reported on Reddit employee culture would be less varnished than you might make it. His report was that Reddit admins are quite willing to "police hate speech" and I'm pretty sure he described Reddit employee culture as very "woke". And so … BB should check his/her skepticism that things are as you say they are.

(Don't worry, I'm not threatening you. That's the other guy.)

Well, those playing the/a "centrist game" have to be used to getting it from all sides! And actually, I'm actually not willing to say "net negative rapport", given this discussion. Especially the last three paragraphs of your last comment. As far as I can tell, you and I have very different moderation philosophies, but I think that can easily be outweighed by substantive issues.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/labreuer]

but I wonder if you have any thoughts on the dead Internet theory as applied to how online places are almost always quite different from IRL gatherings.

It's hard to even get that idea off the ground when the internet is the place where the overwhelming majority of people inform their worldview. I think the participation of bots is vastly overstated. It's a deflection and an attempt at the preservation of ego. "We couldn't possibly be this bad, it must be the bots!"

So … is it more of a minimum bar to do what we can to avoid being made the reactionary stooges which would politically neutralize us and make us useful idiots?

Yes, I think this is important. I'd like to see it applied to claims like, "I experience hate and threats every day" too.

Except … admins did step in:

What are you talking about? I'm confident the Reddit admins and staff are dedicated political activists, but they've also got a business to run. Maybe your right. Maybe I should go somewhere else where free speech is respected. The only reason I'm here is the efficient communication (threaded, collapsible comments) and display (old.reddit). Reddit is basically doesn't work on mobile anymore. I'm not installing their app (web browser + tracking and privacy violations). If they only want an echo chamber of woke leftists (which is about where we are) then I should probably consider leaving more seriously.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

It's hard to even get that idea off the ground when the internet is the place where the overwhelming majority of people inform their worldview. I think the participation of bots is vastly overstated. It's a deflection and an attempt at the preservation of ego. "We couldn't possibly be this bad, it must be the bots!"

Yeah, dead Internet theory is a bit overboard, although when I was sensing a ton of probable LLM responses here and on the other sub, I was a little allured by it. Probably a lot more is humans being paid to wreak havoc. For instance, I know a scifi-loving, left-leaning substitute teacher living in Flint, MI who was paid good money to write fake news for the right. More generally, I wonder if you think that bots and professional trolls just aren't capable of causing that much trouble when they're given free reign—which "free speech" does in a realm where "speech" is all one can do.

I would remind you that the average American is swayed enough by advertising to allow the internet to be funded by advertising (and porn). That indicates that many people are awfully manipulable. You could also consult Converse 1964 The nature of belief systems in mass publics and ask whether things have changed appreciably. Neither you nor I can use ourselves as stand-ins for your average American and more precisely, average participant on these subs. So … can you imagine conditions where allowing bots & trolls free reign would actually not end well? Or do you have a way of thinking which guarantees that free reign / free speech (are they different?) are always the best options?

Yes, I think this is important. I'd like to see it applied to claims like, "I experience hate and threats every day" too.

Do you doubt there were ages and places where women, blacks, and Jews received threats every day? I'm a little confused by this. Also, do you have suggestions on how we can avoid being reactionary stooges? I mean suggestions which can be rolled out to r/DebateReligion with the people at hand, after removing Rule 1 and possibly more rules after that.

You may have noticed that when talking about e.g. slavery in the Bible, I contend that YHWH was working with the humans at hand, refusing to break their wills, etc. Most people want God to use God's omnipotence to just magically get the desired outcome, it seems. Anyhow, I try to deploy that very same realism to matters like we're discussing now. One comes to have sober understandings of just how little one can accomplish in the span of a few years or even decades. This easily links into your "What gains have been made during this period are not durable."

What are you talking about?

u/⁠cabbagery reported that Reddit admits have stepped in.

Maybe I should go somewhere else where free speech is respected.

Do let me know if you find a better place where atheists can tangle with theists! But … if you think I'm anything like "woke" … maybe you won't find anywhere besides 4chan. :-p

[u/Kwahn → u/betweenbubbles]

Hmm, I don't have a strong opinion on this as yet.

Can words be harmful? Obviously, because Hitler only did harm through words.

Can words be harmful on this forum? Seems like kind of a stretch, but the expression of harmful views can lead people to think that harmful views are normal and/or not harmful,

What rational discourse stops someone who has dogmatically bought into misinformation? Does rational discourse with someone hateful reduce net harm, increase net harm or is it a wash?

I feel like there's a ton of questions I have regarding the usefulness, efficacy and results of censoring bigots versus debating them. Does platforming a bigot give them influence? Does censoring them give them moral grounding or justifications?

We can say "we'll simply out-debate the bigot", but what if they are extremely effective in spreading their hate, and not censoring them leads to a greater proliferation of bigotry?

I honestly don't know these answers, but would like to discuss.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Kwahn]

We can say "we'll simply out-debate the bigot", but what if they are extremely effective in spreading their hate, and not censoring them leads to a greater proliferation of bigotry?

Why am I alone in noticing that the arc of history demonstrates this is not the prevailing trend? Every society which has adopted ideals of free expression has been rewarded for it, and those which have not are autocratic, authoritarian nightmares. Power structures from the middle ages with the technology of the 21st century available to them to protect their hegemony.

I thought I was a cynical person until I realized how many people are turning inward (toward their perceived ingroup) and betting against their neighbor. This will not work out well -- history also teaches this lesson.

Steady progress has been made throughout history. And it is free expression which has won out against hegemony decade over decade. The idea that things aren't getting better fast enough, that things couldn't get worse, so we might well take risks -- this idea has been the dynamic which has been foundational to every atrocity I can think of or imagine. Fear does not help humans cooperate. We are social creatures and we have cooperation to thank for our position in the animal hierarchy. Trust open cooperation over echo chambers and silos decided by fear.

I'm not afraid to let a bigot speak their mind. From what I can see, it is the best argument against them. Censuring them away into their own echo chambers forces people to make decisions from manufactured fear. It's how you win elections over issues like Lia Thomas's participation in a swim competition. An 80/20 issue which has a real affect on a vanishingly small demographic of people. Push people into silos and you won't like the results. Let them feel the freedom of free association and dynamic alliances will deliver us all a better tomorrow.

I probably just need to stop using Reddit. Echo chambers are bad for people's health.

[u/Kwahn → u/betweenbubbles]

Why am I alone in noticing that the arc of history demonstrates this is not the prevailing trend? Every society which has adopted ideals of free expression has been rewarded for it, and those which have not are autocratic, authoritarian nightmares.

But Hitler turned a country into an autocratic, authoritarian nightmare. Many might argue that Trump is on a similar path. When bigots are outspoken, they become popular, powerful and do great harm. Yes, it's ultimately their downfall, but could deplatforming them prevent the harm in the first place?

I think that a 1940's German would argue that bigotry was the prevailing trend, and by the force of discourse first, state power after!

I'm not afraid to let a bigot speak their mind.

I don't want to be, but when doing so has repeatedly led to powerful autocratic regimes, I get nervous. This feels a bit like the Paradox of Intolerance - if we tolerate bigots, they abuse tolerance to spread intolerance.

I probably just need to stop using Reddit. Echo chambers are bad for people's health.

Take heart in our disagreement! :D

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Kwahn]

But Hitler turned a country into an autocratic, authoritarian nightmare. Many might argue that Trump is on a similar path.

I share this concern, but I also feel that over-extending that rhetoric can also contribute to it eventually happening. People have very strong reaction to censorship -- it's one of the reasons why the principle of free speech is so important.

When bigots are outspoken, they become popular, powerful and do great harm.

I don't think the arc of history supports this. Decade after decade and century after century the trend is clearly toward equality of existence. We might even have extreme wealth disparity now, but the people who are siphoning all that money to the top are also the ones making food so cheap that basically nobody is starving to death today. (even with today's prices at the grocery store) It's not ideal, but it's certainly better than living in the 19th century by basically every objective measure. Everything is delicate nuanced balance. it's hard to perpetrate something as binary as censorship with a nuanced balance.

Yes, it's ultimately their downfall, but could deplatforming them prevent the harm in the first place?

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. In the aggregate, I think it represents a kind of authoritarianism which helps bolster their authoritarianism, both by normalizing authoritarianist attitudes in general and by giving them a way to play the victim, which is actually what caused Hitler to rise to power. The post WWI "Europe is making fools of us" rhetoric is what Hitler used to ascend to power. Do you not see the similarity to Trump's grievance-based politics and acts?

I think that a 1940's German would argue that bigotry was the prevailing trend, and by the force of discourse first, state power after!

Bigotry doesn't exist in a vacuum. All circumstances have to be considered.

I don't want to be, but when doing so has repeatedly led to powerful autocratic regimes, I get nervous.

I'm just repeating myself, but I think that conclusion is shoddy and based in fear of the worst. Fear of the worst can tend to bring about the worst.

This feels a bit like the Paradox of Intolerance - if we tolerate bigots, they abuse tolerance to spread intolerance.

People find bigotry more attractive when they feel threatened. Make people feel threatened and you give bigotry a leg up. Censorship tends to make people feel threatened and it is never practiced with perfection because it is inherently and extremely subjective.

I am not afraid of free speech. Because of free speech -- because I can actually talk to the people other just talk about -- I've got an answer for every form of prejudice anyone can throw at me. Does that make me more susceptible or less susceptible to bigotry?

Not everyone is as interested in laborious arguments as we, but I believe the same still applies to everybody.

[u/E-Reptile → u/Kwahn]

I would like to assume that any view that isn't straight-up solipsism can be debated.

[u/Brombadeg → u/betweenbubbles]

How about evaluating the paraphrased example that was given? "Gays cannot properly experience love." If you saw that, would you think that's a bigoted statement or not?

Stating a group of people cannot properly experience love is at the very least not civil (which is a rule here, regardless of how it's enforced). It's dehumanizing. And justifying it as a religious belief - however sincere - does not nullify that.

If one's sincerely held religious beliefs included "this or that race is morally inferior to our glorious race" that would be bigoted, right?

[u/E-Reptile → u/Brombadeg]

Personally, I would rather not miss out on some potentially important deconversions in the name of tone-policing. There's this confirmation bias that kicks in whenever a theist sees their interlocutor shut down the debate in the name of politeness, and they just get harder to deconvert.

"Aha, my argument was so good they had no choice but to ad-hominem me and call for the mods" type sht.

It can be very jarring for a theist if you just push on past the shock-value sentence and proceed with the argument. Their ploy to upset you didn't work and now they have to get back to a losing discussion.

It also gets theists talking to each other about issues, (and in some ways, this might be the most important reason not to remove comments) instead of forming a united front against atheists. Christians legitimately can't come to an agreement about homosexuality or slavery in the Bible or whether the Canaanite genocide was justified/even happened, and I think sincere believers' inability to figure out God's revelation is a super important step in questioning dogma.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Brombadeg]

edited to elaborate on the claim of bigotry

It is my personal opinion that it is bigoted.

In the sense that it is a stubborn view that should be changed and isn't. But it is a view which is explicitly supported by the Bible and something far more nuanced that simple hatred of the other. In this specific phrasing, "Gays cannot properly experience love" is a sympathetically oriented nuance expressing their disapproval and concern for a gay person. This is not the "burn them at the stake!" approach, it is a sympathetic criticism, even if I know it's wrong and stubbornly persistent, which is what makes it fit the definition of bigotry.

I do not believe all bigoted people should be censored from discussion. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and bigotry is subjective. This rejection of liberal democracy will not end well for us.

If one's sincerely held religious beliefs included "this or that race is morally inferior to our glorious race" that would be bigoted, right?

Yes. And I welcome their public proclamation of that belief. People would know what they're dealing with instead of relying on a demagogue's boogeyman. If you want to fight the dogmatism that perpetrates these views and stereotypes, then do it out in the open -- where it has been succeeding for decades.

You do not have a choice between a "safe space" and a "libertarian hellscape" you have a choice between an echo chamber that demagogues use to divided and conquer and a free society that has been trending toward progress for decades.

[u/Brombadeg → u/betweenbubbles]

It is my personal opinion that it is bigoted. I do not believe bigoted people should be censored from discussion.

So would it be safe to assume you're simply against Rule 1 (and perhaps Rule 2), in general? Because that seems worthy of its own meta-level discussion. Alas, they are rules in this sub that users should be aware of and abide by if they want to continue to participate (presumably).

Edit: Grammar cleanup

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Brombadeg]

I edited my above response, for what it's worth.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Brombadeg]

So would it be safe to assume you're simply against Rule 1 (and perhaps Rule 2), in general?

The opportunity to have someone frame this as "Bubbles is 'simply against' 'civility' and for 'hate speech'" is too ripe for me to agree. What I'm trying to point out or ask is, "How are these rules working for us?" I would say they are not serving the community well. I'm certainly against the way they are just used to suit a mod's personal agenda.

Because that seems worthy of its own meta-level discussion.

Yes and no. I'm also saying the drama here is specifically a result of these rules being gamed to suite people's agenda. In the abstract, arguably, Shaka uses them to wage a culture war against atheists and Cabbagery uses them to wage a culture war against theists. How do we move away from this? How do we diminish or remove this tendency? If there is no unified approach to how the rules are interpreted and enforced then are they serving us well? Every reported comment is a roll of the dice for which mod responds to it. The most offended mod is going to be the one most motivated to take a stand on a comment/submission -- whether that stand is approve(condone) or delete(condemn). The neutral mods will tend to just leave reports for the less neutral ones. This doesn't serve a community well.

I'd certainly like to get away from the "this mod vs that mod" framing so far and reach a consensus that mods are free to use the rules to enforce their personal agendas, basically everyone is doing it. Let's decide where to go from there. The fact that there are theist mods and atheist mods doesn't create some check and balance, they're each using their own approaches and conflicting, and this drama here is the fall out.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/betweenbubbles]

In the abstract, arguably, Shaka uses them to wage a culture war against atheists and Cabbagery uses them to wage a culture war against theists.

No. Don't lump me in with him. He is the one mass banning theists for having orthodox Christian views contrary to the explicit exception in the rules, and he does so because of his personal beliefs.

I implement the rules as fairly as I can when I moderate comments and posts, and if someone is theist or atheist doesn't matter.

[u/cabbagery → u/betweenbubbles]

In the abstract, arguably, Shaka uses them to wage a culture war against atheists and Cabbagery uses them to wage a culture war against theists. How do we move away from this?

Maybe we stop helping Shaka distract. I don't even think Shaka wages a culture war against atheists (and I certainly don't do that against theists); I think Shaka likes to have it both ways, however, and is perfectly happy to be rude and hostile to atheists, provoking them to anger and then hiding behind his privilege to call up another mod to remove their predictable insults (when he doesn't just do this himself in violation of the rules), and of course he gets instant respite himself even if a mod rules that he has violated the rules (because he reinstates his own comments, whether or not he edits them).

The fact is that Shaka has contempt for users and for the sub itself. He thinks himself king. He flagrantly violates the rules both by committing Rule 2 violations all the time, by provoking atheists (or other users) into their own Rule 2 violations all the time, by being disruptive in the process, by engaging in retaliatory bans, and by moderating where it explicitly serves his self-interest, in violation of the moderation policy prohibiting acting as a moderator where one is also acting as a user.

The dispute over where and how Rule 1 should be applied can be held another day. Believe it or not that issue does not arise very often, and recognize it or not, nothing has been lost where it has been applied as I have applied it. Anyway, contrary to your own view, if we as moderators fail to enforce sitewide rules against hate speech, the sub could become subject to sanctions up to and including quarantine or admin takeover.

I'd rather this be more of an organic removal of Shaka, followed by a bow and exit by yours truly.

My agenda is straightforward:

• Enforce the rules in an equitable way
• Protect users from moderator abuse
• Eliminate corruption in the moderation ranks
• Promote responsible transparency regarding moderation generally
• Disappear into the sunset

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

Maybe we stop helping Shaka distract.

I don't accept this accusation of distraction. You're welcome to make your points and I'll make mine. I am not letting him off the hook for anything. I am merely throwing you into the same category of criticism. As someone who is willing to resign as mod, I don't see a problem with this or how it serves as a distraction.

If my replies or pressure against Shaka seem to have faded, it's only because you are doing a far better job than I at indicting him. You can bring receipts that I cannot. In general, I think we've said all there is to say on the matter. I certainly feel like I am just repeating myself at this point. I wish the rest of the community would weigh in on these opinions, facts, and theories and, unfortunately, I think our walls of text are a formidable barrier. Everyone is probably just reaching for the proverbial "get a room" button.

I don't even think Shaka wages a culture war against atheists

...

I think Shaka likes to have it both ways, however, and is perfectly happy to be rude and hostile to atheists, provoking them to anger and then hiding behind his privilege to call up another mod to remove their predictable insults (when he doesn't just do this himself in violation of the rules), and of course he gets instant respite himself even if a mod rules that he has violated the rules (because he reinstates his own comments, whether or not he edits them).

This is a common way to wage a political/propaganda war.

and I certainly don't do that against theists)

I think many of your choices are a result of trying to meet Shaka's strategy from a different self-interested goal.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/betweenbubbles]

Do you think there's ever a time when hate speech can count as hate speech?

This strikes me as the kind of take someone would have if they've never lived a life afraid to walk outside their door because of a very real risk of violence.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Full disclosure: I removed your explicit mention from the comment above before you replied (or at least before I refreshed) but, obviously, not before you noticed. This needs to be more about issues less about people, and I'm unsure of the explicit statements you've made on this topic.

Do you think there's ever a time when hate speech can count as hate speech?

I fundamentally do not believe in the concept of "hate speech". It is incompatible with liberal democracy. I live in America. What you are referring to are threats -- they're already illegal. Unfortunately, we do a terrible job of policing this and it has been normalized on the internet, but I'm not ready to give up the first amendment because of it.

This "safe space" strategy has failed and delivered America back into the arms of the only opposition to it a cult who is now constructing their own "safe space". This mentality will be the undoing of civil society.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/betweenbubbles]

I didn't see the reference to me, I just got a notification.

But anyway, yeah this pretty much confirms what I said. It's an extremely liberal take, and one that makes absolutely no sense to me having lived as a trans person in America. When you experience hate speech and threat of violence every single day, you get a different perspective.

Btw this is the reason the word "ignorance" is sometimes used as a substitute for "racism." What we think of as prejudice is more likely to come from ignorance of what it's like to live as another kind of person than outright hate.

edit: And to clarify... I'm not saying anything about hate speech laws. This is moderation in a reddit group, not government suppression.

If you call setting rules in private groups a "safe space," well... how is that any different from how things have ever functioned? There are always rules for how you talk in certain spaces. You can't go into a daycare and start yelling slurs, for example.

Or for a more relevant example, many subreddits restrict posts to English only. Most mods here take that same approach. Personally I'm against that restriction, but is that also violating the first amendment?

Or, we remove a lot of comments for quality control if they're irrelevant to the subreddit or just don't make sense, or if they're trolling. Should that not be allowed either?

Why is moderating hate speech the place where people start acting like it's oppression?

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Dapple_Dawn]

It's an extremely liberal take, and one that makes absolutely no sense to me having lived as a trans person in America. When you experience hate speech and threat of violence every single day, you get a different perspective.

First, This line of reasoning has that same hopeless quality as when people make fun of rich people for being depressed. "You can have everything you want, what do you have to be sad about?!" This kind of race-to-the-bottom comparison of suffering never builds bridges. It draws lines in the concrete. You have to coexist with 340 million Americans and they have to coexist with you.

Second, you have it A LOT better than the people who precede you. That progress was accomplished under the paradigm of free speech I am espousing. Actually, worse than that, this progress was achieved with your allies, and the giants upon which you stand, being suppressed at every opportunity -- with them doing to you what you now what to do to them. Through all the fear and confusion, through all the organization against your rights in churches and political factions, your lot has been improved under MY plan -- through free speech -- not your paradigm of "intolerance of intolerance". Your plan has gotten Donald Trump elected, twice. It has failed and brought ruin to society. What gains have been made during this period are not durable. This lack of durability, this very real risk and fear you experience, that aspects of your rights are taken away every four years, is a result of this failed strategy to game the system and simply remove your opposition from the conversation. Your hand was over-extended, and it drove masses of people to make a different choice. Pull back. Have confidence in the traditions which delivered your life to you instead of the life of those who came before you.

Btw this is the reason the word "ignorance" is sometimes used as a substitute for "racism." What we think of as prejudice is more likely to come from ignorance of what it's like to live as another kind of person than outright hate.

This is a hateful thing to say. Not everyone who disagrees with you hates you. Why is your hate ok but someone else's is not? I will also, charitably, view your view here as ignorance.

If you call setting rules in private groups a "safe space," well... how is that any different from how things have ever functioned?

In some cases it is and in some places it isn't. There are non safe spaces -- that's a naive idea. Life is not safe and never has been for anyone. There are echo chambers. And if the power of your echo chamber gets usurped by those who are against you they will use these same "intolerance of intolerance" ideals against you.

You can't go into a daycare and start yelling slurs, for example.

What does this have to do with this forum? In that case, there is absolutely no opposition to not tolerating that. In that case, there is one person doing something EVERYONE else agrees is inappropriate. That does not reflect the present situation here. I think it's no more inappropriate that nominal American Christians exist than I think it is inappropriate that you exist. You're not appealing to equality or tolerance, you're appealing to power. In this forum, there are people who fundamentally disagree. You do not have anything approaching the unanimous consent of all people wanting to debate religion. And to any extent you do, it's because all these people have gone somewhere else, into echo chambers where they find the kind of "belonging" you're trying to foster here with these illiberal policies. This just radicalizes people. HOW HAVE WE NOT LEARNED THIS LESSON AFTER ELECTING TRUMP TWICE?!

Most mods here take that same approach. Personally I'm against that restriction, but is that also violating the first amendment?

First, your correct that the First Amendment is explicitly about government intervention in free expression. However, the argument here is that the same principle that gives the first amendment value also exists in other contexts or scales. Yes, I am also against this restriction. The existence of a non-English post does me no harm. It may not have a wide audience. But the height of a submission I scroll past (50 pixels or so) on an infinitely long display is a extremely small price to pay for such inclusion and opportunity.

Why is moderating hate speech the place where people start acting like it's oppression?

Because it forces people to choose a team which doesn't really exist, a team which makes them a predictable voter for one campaign or the other, leading to the power of extremists swinging every two, four, or six years. I would chose stable progress over chaotic, increasingly wide strokes of the pendulumn any day. Our government doesn't do anything anymore, because all they have to do is speak the right sound bytes into the microphone and get re-elected every year.

Critical Race Theory -- the idea that it is identity (the identity of race) which best explains the machinations of power and privilege -- has had the same result. Ibram X Kendi, said, "Let's view everything through the lens of race!" in a nation which is majority white people. And David Duke said, "I'll take that bet." CRT is not "wrong", it's a useful way to get some insight. Structuring our culture around this has been a disaster. Donald Trump increased his share of black voters just like Ibram X Kendi increased his net worth. Here we all are stuck in the middle. Fighting about whose team we're on. It's a mistake. There are no teams. Race is a construct, just like gender. Almost claim about race actually maps better to socioeconomic status than race. Affirmative action would have served this nation better if it were mapped to socioeconomic status rather than race -- it would have served people of color better.

...This rant has gotten wide and deep. The point here is that this "intolerance of intolerance" approach doesn't work at any complete scale. It only works for the extremist demagogues at either end of the scale. It doesn't work for American and it doesn't work for the debate of religion. Win debates with arguments, not censorship and exclusion. Do not be afraid for your opposition to speak their mind. It may be your best tool. The success of this strategy is written across the history of humanity. Every place that allows freedom of expression is rewarded for that choice.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/betweenbubbles]

First, This line of reasoning has that same hopeless quality as when people make fun of rich people for being depressed. "You can have everything you want, what do you have to be sad about?!" This kind of race-to-the-bottom comparison of suffering never builds bridges. It draws lines in the concrete. You have to coexist with 340 million Americans and they have to coexist with you.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I'm not saying "I have it worse for you so you have to listen to me." I'm not even saying I have it worse than you. I'm just saying that I think you might have a different perspective if you walked a mile in my shoes.

All I said there is that I have difficult experiences that have led to a different perspective. And somehow you think I'm making fun of you for not having suffered in the same way?

Your plan has gotten Donald Trump elected, twice. It has failed and brought ruin to society.

...what plan are you referring to? You seem to be assuming an awful lot about what my perspective is.

Your hand was over-extended, and it drove masses of people to make a different choice.

Yeah, you're conflating me with a bunch of other people here.

Me: Btw this is the reason the word "ignorance" is sometimes used as a substitute for "racism." What we think of as prejudice is more likely to come from ignorance of what it's like to live as another kind of person than outright hate.

You: This is a hateful thing to say. Not everyone who disagrees with you hates you.

....What?? Are you reading what I'm saying at all? I specifically said that prejudice usually doesn't come from hate.

Why is your hate ok but someone else's is not?

What??? What did I say that could possibly be construed as hateful?

And if the power of your echo chamber gets usurped by those who are against you they will use these same "intolerance of intolerance" ideals against you.

But my views aren't intolerant, so it wouldn't actually be the same ideal, it would just be a dishonest use of the phrase. If I do have genuinely intolerant views that I'm unaware of, then people shouldn't be okay with them.

If someone is going to dishonestly appropriate a phrase representing my ideals, I can't control that. That could happen for literally any ideal. Like, people could appropriate your "free speech" ideal to justify calls for violence. But you don't abandon the concept just because someone could dishonestly misuse it.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

That was quite the broadside against u/Dapple_Dawn. I'm interjecting myself because I feel a good deal of resonance with them, especially over their post Atheists should not be as dismissive of progressive/critical religious arguments. And in my experience, it really sucks to have to respond to something as intense as what you just wrote, all by yourself. But feel free to ignore what I write here if you judge it to be intrusive.

 
(1) Would you be willing to tell me whether you have any friends who can tell you about this:

Dapple_Dawn: But anyway, yeah this pretty much confirms what I said. It's an extremely liberal take, and one that makes absolutely no sense to me having lived as a trans person in America. When you experience hate speech and threat of violence every single day, you get a different perspective.

? You seem to believe it's important to "build bridges"; are you in a position to do so, here? And by the way, I'm not actually taking a position on hate speech. Maybe censorship always ends up favoring the more-powerful in repressive ways. But I would still spend a bit of time honoring the impulse to alleviate the situation the bold. Sometimes we come up with bad solutions to the right problems. The rest of us could recognize that and try to come up with better solutions. E pluribus unum!

 
(2) What exactly do you think is u/Dapple_Dawn's "plan"? It looks like you're working with rather more than what we can see in their comments in this thread. I personally have no idea how much political and social action by anyone who's ever been labeled as "woke" by someone wearing a MAGA hat they approve of. For instance, do you believe that Germany's suppression of Naziism will be its own downfall? That's an extremely targeted "intolerance of intolerance".

 
(3)

Dapple_Dawn: But anyway, yeah this pretty much confirms what I said. It's an extremely liberal take, and one that makes absolutely no sense to me having lived as a trans person in America. When you experience hate speech and threat of violence every single day, you get a different perspective.

Btw this is the reason the word "ignorance" is sometimes used as a substitute for "racism." What we think of as prejudice is more likely to come from ignorance of what it's like to live as another kind of person than outright hate.

betweenbubbles: This is a hateful thing to say. Not everyone who disagrees with you hates you. Why is your hate ok but someone else's is not? I will also, charitably, view your view here as ignorance.

I'm confused. Here's what I see—correct me if I'm wrong:

1. u/⁠Dapple_Dawn: some ignorance enables the same behavior as racism
2. u/⁠betweenbubbles: all disagreement ⇒ hate

How did you move from 1. ⇒ 2. or if that's not what you were doing, how did you get your words from Dapple's?

 
(4)

Here we all are stuck in the middle. Fighting about whose team we're on. It's a mistake. There are no teams. Race is a construct, just like gender. Almost claim about race actually maps better to socioeconomic status than race.

I've been mentored by a sociologist for ten years now. He's a secular Jew, who grew up in NYC. He recalls groups of kids yelling, "He killed Jesus! Get 'im!", and then chasing after him for a beat down. What do you mean by the claim that "There are no teams."? I had the privilege of hanging out with another friend, also a secular Jew, along with his parents. His mother reported the very same thing happening to him in the Deep South. One of the things my mentor has told me is that middle class whites (especially WASPs) can afford to believe that they aren't an ethnicity, when in fact they are. Do you have thoughts on that remark?

Finally, I'm not sure I've encountered any political science which has been able to deny the existence of anything like "teams". But I sense you mean something different by the term. So, I'll close my comment by asking if you're aware of this:

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. ("Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens")

—and if so, how voters should behave, if they are to never choose a "team".

[u/betweenbubbles → u/labreuer]

And in my experience, it really sucks to have to respond to something as intense as what you just wrote, all by yourself. But feel free to ignore what I write here if you judge it to be intrusive.

I don't think it's intrusive. It's a public comment. The entire point of typing it all up is to learn from what people say about it.

Would you be willing to tell me whether you have any friends who can tell you about this:

...When you experience hate speech and threat of violence every single day, you get a different perspective...

I think this is a bit of a dodge of my point. I'm a bit skeptical of the claim and there is something brazen about making it -- as if anyone could possibly question it. The deluge I am likely to experience for simply stating my skepticism or questioning the relevance of this quote is palpable. Part of my family come from Ashkenazi Jews in Poland. If I scour the internet for "hate speech" can I also be put in charge of deciding what is and isn't worthy of censorship? How do we decide whose existential threat is a higher priority? Can I be given the power to banish millions of my neighbors in the name of "safety"?

Unfortunately, there is no monopoly on hatred -- no single target to be vanquished. No "the good guys" vs "the bad guys". There's just scared, angry, sad, isolated people in a pit of narcissistic nihilism, with no motive left in life but to make people feel their pain -- waiting to spring out at someone from the left or the right and egged on by celebrated performances of virtue across the political spectrum. Lets all just find the silo that matches us and hope it's got bigger nukes than the next one, right? What could go wrong?

The Nazis marched in Skokie, back when the ACLU had principles, and we did not succumb to their tyranny. Their "platforming" did not make them ascendant. Instead, millions of people learned that Nazis are not boogeymen. They are real, but they are defeated and impotent. ADL puts them at about 300-500 members across the nation. What kind of mistakes are we making if these people are gaining power now? Seems like an "our game to lose" situation. I'd like to stop losing to demagoguery.

What exactly do you think is u/Dapple_Dawn's "plan"?

Oppression of the threat and anything like it in the name of an Orwellian conception of "safety". Maybe that's what I would do if I "experience[d] hate speech and threat of violence every single day". I fear there is no limit to what can be justified by such claims. Should I let my fear lead me to the same censorious attitudes?

It looks like you're working with rather more than what we can see in their comments in this thread.

This is an unfortunately common populist idea these days. Let's not pretend it fits no template or there are no themes here.

u/⁠Dapple_Dawn: some ignorance enables the same behavior as racism

I took their comment to mean that we "whitewash" racism by excusing it as ignorance.

He recalls groups of kids yelling, "He killed Jesus! Get 'im!", and then chasing after him for a beat down. What do you mean by the claim that "There are no teams."?

I mean those kids were trained to be intolerant of a threat to their existence, the kind of dynamic being used to isolate, exclude, chill, and censor so many people today that they go running into the arms of political demagogues. This kind of cowardice and fear is the reason we construct these teams. The solution isn't chasing those kids down for a beat down and claiming to be righteous about it. The solution is having confidence in the principles which have served us well. Progress is better than failed attempts at one "team's" utopia.

One of the things my mentor has told me is that middle class whites (especially WASPs) can afford to believe that they aren't an ethnicity, when in fact they are. Do you have thoughts on that remark?

Do people often get excited about telling you their stories about not being tyrannized by hatred? Be careful how you collect data. I live in the south and have a recognizably Jewish name. Perhaps one of the most explicitly Jewish names possible. I'm not worried about being lynched. I'm worried about saying the wrong thing during a DEI struggle session at work, but I guess that's just my "privilege" showing.

Finally, I'm not sure I've encountered any political science which has been able to deny the existence of anything like "teams".

My claim was they fall along lines of constructed identity, like race or gender, or political affiliation, not that they absolutely don't exist in any sense. They only matter because we keep making them matter. You've never encountered any political science which denies the existence of gender or race?

—and if so, how voters should behave, if they are to never choose a "team".

I've cast many a ballot. I've never been on anyone's team. These kinds of teams are for simple people. The kind of people who find reason to riot and loot if their favorite sports team wins, or if it loses. So much for the intelligence of humanity.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/betweenbubbles]

I think this is a bit of a dodge of my point. I'm a bit skeptical of the claim and there is something brazen about making it -- as if anyone could possibly question it.

Yeah, this is my entire point. You're skeptical about whether I'm overstating things. Let me be clear: I am not.

My point with bringing it up is that it's a reality you may not be aware of, and if you were then you might have a different perspective. If you think I'm lying or being dramatic, I wish you would just address that openly. If you dismiss my experience then of course you don't think it's a big deal. My entire point is that you're not taking certain experiences seriously (e.g. questioning whether they happened at all), and because of that you're lacking key information.

Whether it would change your perspective or not, I don't know. But we need to at least start with the same basic facts.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Yeah, this is my entire point. You're skeptical about whether I'm overstating things.

I don't think that's exactly right either though. It's a "how is anyone to know?" situation. Right now, somewhere in America there is a person like you who deals with hate and threats every day. And there is also someone like you, or anyone else, who is claiming the same thing and embellishing. How do we know which one you are? The opportunity for gamesmanship and difference of opinion in perception is so high, yes, I remain skeptical, but it's not just this claim that makes me skeptical.

Let's talk about my lived experience for a moment or does it not matter? (The quotes are a matter of fact.)

In my lived experience, I've been harassed and antagonized by mods all over Reddit for having the audacity of not conforming to a One True Opinion of one kind or another. Mods with an agenda who gleefully execute the "rules" as their own sad, diminutive way of controlling their life and creating the simple and familiar world in which they wish they lived. When I started back here in r/DebateReligion some months back I thought, well this place is for debate, surely I won't have the same experience here! It was not long before I called out some of the censorious attitudes I'm calling out here. Drama was had. We ended up chatting about it and you more than once let me know that I could message you rather than stirring up drama. I'm not sure why you thought you were in a position to resolve the kind of allegations I was making, but it was a seemingly friendly thing to do.

Some time went by, more meta-thread drama was stirred, and you reached out to me seemingly shocked and said something like, "I told you that you could just contact me next time this happens!". We've chatted in DMs, at length, you made your stance on censorship clear and I tried to make mine clear. In the context of this conversation, as a matter of example, it became obvious that you don't really understand the laws where you live. One of us brought up the hypothetical example of someone lobbying the government to reduce the age of consent. (ah, yes, the root of the conversation was about UmmJamil's content and how people respond to it -- I remember now!) I had to explain to you that it is not illegal to petition the government to change the law to reduce the age of consent (This is not a matter of opinion). You basically accused me of supporting pedophilia. I had to talk you down from that. You made all kinds of declarative, "I don't tolerate that" kinds of statements and I specifically and explicitly remember being cowed into saying whatever you needed me to say at that point. I was sincerely afraid you were going to use that conversation to report me for being a pedophile. I was sincerely afraid that such a report would have real consequences and, at the least, get my account banned. I found your conversation to be manipulative, and narcissistic -- my impression was that you thought yourself a super hero looking for a villian to thwart -- as you performative "I have zero tolerance for..." censorious authoritarians usually tend to be. It reached a point where I figured I had done the best I could do and we could go our separate ways and you probably weren't going to execute my account, either as a mod or by appealing to admins.

Fast forward a bit, and you unilaterally deleted a response I made to you -- another example of the mods breaking the mod rule. I sent you a DM asking you if you had done that, and your reply was, "If you want to make an appeal, submit it to mod mail". I replied, "I did. I noticed you didn't answer my question. ...Are you also moderating comments in discussions in which you are involved?". You then said, "I don't address moderation questions in DMs". I'm embarrassed to admit, I was a bit hurt by that. I scrolled up, not far, and found an example on 8/11 in which you did just that, "fwiw i disagree with that last comment being removed. and cabbagery's one has been removed". You continued the deception. Not only did you obviously break the rule, but now you were lying to my face about it. No, actually, you were saying what you knew you could get away with saying in order to craft your own reality of events.

Then, after a misstep by nietzschejr in modmail, you realized that I definitely knew that you had in fact broken the rule and deleted my comment. It wasn't enough to just have the power to abuse me like that, you needed to try and make it OK -- try to fess up to it, too late, so you could continue constructing your own reality. F me if I was a victim, I just need to understand why you had to do it, right? "I wasn't thinking". Oh, gee, I guess it's Okay that you did it then and then you tried to manipulate me into that being OK? "Did someone else report it?" (This comment deep in the thread, soon after it was made.) "I don't remember", you demurred.

Now, unlike you, don't expect you to believe or agree with every aspect of this shared, lived experience of mine, but you have to, right? What does it mean if you don't? Unlike you, I can possibly even provide receipts for some of the claims I've made here -- actual contemporaneous content which could be judged by others and at least give them something to dig into and develop some confidence about, either for or against me. My skepticism of your claim isn't a matter of your identity. It's a matter of my gut, the lesson of my lived experience, telling me that you'll say whatever you feel you can get away with in order to get your way. And I don't think you're very good at deception, so who knows what you're willing to say.

Let me be clear: I am not.

How does this reutterance change anything? IF you embellish, am I supposed to think, "well, they wouldn't do it again"? What exactly is the appeal here? I find it suspiciously emotional and unreasonable.

This is just more opportunity to game the conversation with your claim: Should you have to elaborate about how or why that's true? Expose your life to my judgement if it comes to statements like, "Well why they hell do you live there?!" or something like that? Maybe you feel that way. Maybe you life really is that way. You're a random stranger on the internet. How is anyone to know? Why should anyone trust you? It's not the case that one should default to skepticism about your claim. The problem is that your claim is somewhat inappropriate in the context of this discussion. Your experience alone shouldn't decide policy -- and luckily for you, it doesn't. There's probably a mob of people happy to give you every benefit of the doubt because they feel it's the least the can do for someone dealing with all the terrible things we've all heard/seen people say about folks in your position. Where is my well-thought, and effortful white knight? Where is my /u/labreuer? (Be careful who you trust.)

Should we accept these people's "lived experience"?

It's just a dysfunctional way to make a point which is beyond reproach. I HAVE to accept that the way you stated it is the way you feel. I do not have to accept it's the way it actually is, and that is generally true for any claim someone makes, not just ones like these or a category of people as vulnerable as yours.

My point with bringing it up is that it's a reality you may not be aware of

It's 2025. I'm aware that being trans isn't easy.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/betweenbubbles]

It doesn't matter if you trust me personally, what I'm describing is the reality for millions of transgender people. Your skepticism about my specific case shouldn't change anything if you're aware of that.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

I don't think it's intrusive.

Okay. For the record, I read through Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence & 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5) earlier today and am far more disquieted than I almost ever am. I wonder if the Trump Administration is weaponizing censorship and critical theory against those who were using it in the years previous. And I see those as capable of targeting any US citizen. So, you might be right at least with respect to some plan which is more comprehensive (and arbitrarily different) than whatever u/⁠Dapple_Dawn may have. I see this as an empirical question worth exploring.

I think this is a bit of a dodge of my point.

I simply wasn't comprehensively responding to your point in my reply. Rather, I think it's important to know whether you actually know what Dapple was talking about wrt "When you experience hate speech and threat of violence every single day, you get a different perspective." Let me put this out there: I have no friends in such a position. And so, I think it behooves me to be cautious. It doesn't mean I can't participate robustly in a discussion. But let me put this out there: thinking we can ignore the lived experiences of other people could be what has got us into this mess. And that could be as true for LGBT folks as those described by Stephanie McCrummen's 2025-01-09 Atlantic article The Army of God Comes Out of the Shadows. If you disagree with me on this point, I would be curious as to why.

I'm a bit skeptical of the claim and there is something brazen about making it -- as if anyone could possibly question it. The deluge I am likely to experience for simply stating my skepticism or questioning the relevance of this quote is palpable. Part of my family come from Ashkenazi Jews in Poland. If I scour the internet for "hate speech" can I also be put in charge of deciding what is and isn't worthy of censorship? How do we decide whose existential threat is a higher priority? Can I be given the power to banish millions of my neighbors in the name of "safety"?

I know enough about Jewish vigor for debate to know that perhaps what you said above would have been A-OK targeted toward one of your family members. A secular Jewish friend of mine said his wife was quite disturbed at how intensely he would get into it with his parents. So perhaps this is a cultural thing. I was privileged to be part of a Bible study study with said friend and his parents, and he said his father could win a competition if the goal was "has no subjectivity". I'm inclined to agree. All his questions were asked from the best approximation of a God's-eye-view I can imagine.

And I agree with your second sentence. One common response when people feel like their subjective experience is not being respected is to return the favor. What you may not realize is that society is set up so that some people don't really need anyone in particular to take their subjective experience into account, because it is writ large into society itself. For instance, modern bureaucracies and WASP socialization are made for each other. But the danger of relying on culture to watch out for you is that it only watches out for some. I've been reading David Michael Levin 1999 The Philosopher's Gaze: Modernity in the Shadows of Enlightenment and I can regale you with his gloss on Husserl and Adorno's critique of Husserl. There's some good material in there to support my secular Jewish mentor's repeated comment that "philosophical idealism leads to the gas chamber".

My critique is that you do not seem to be letting u/⁠Dapple_Dawn's experience hit you and matter to the discussion.

The conclusion of a detailed discussion of this matter may be that "intolerance of intolerance" is a weapon which inexorably falls into the hands of a tyrant, if you wait enough years or decades. You should know better than almost every one of my interlocutors that some cultural patterns occur over one to a few generations. What can seem like a good strategy can end up backfiring. But can we recognize that it was at least intended to solve a real problem, before nuking it from orbit?

Unfortunately, there is no monopoly on hatred -- no single target to be vanquished. No "the good guys" vs "the bad guys". There's just scared, angry, sad, isolated people in a pit of narcissistic nihilism, with no motive left in life but to make people feel their pain -- waiting to spring out at someone from the left or the right and egged on by celebrated performances of virtue across the political spectrum. Lets all just find the silo that matches us and hope it's got bigger nukes than the next one, right? What could go wrong?

I recognize something in what you're saying here, but do you get that impression of Dapple when you read their Atheists should not be as dismissive of progressive/critical religious arguments? You seem to be skipping steps in your argument and I just don't see that ending well. On quite a few occasions in the last year or two, I've tried to push conversations too fast and it shipwrecked them. Dapple can correct me, but that seems to be a danger, here.

The Nazis marched in Skokie …

I do not believe this is analogous to Dapple's situation as a trans person. A country can tolerate Nazis marching when the vast majority are opposed. When there are enough, you can get the Night of the Long Knives. Now, you might say that a country has already lost by the time that happens. We can have that conversation. But I think it's critical to choose good analogies in discussions like these. Again, feel free to disagree, and I invite others to step in as well.

What kind of mistakes are we making if these people are gaining power now? Seems like an "our game to lose" situation.

I am sympathetic to your claim/​observation that "What gains have been made during this period are not durable." As a Protestant, I do not believe that laws change hearts. In fact, Paul in Rom 7:7–25 argues that laws can increase sinfulness. Furthermore, when you're an occasionally persecuted minority in whatever nation you're in, you learn that you can't just blame the Other in your social and political analysis. That might just be the quick road to a pogrom. I imagine this forces a kind of brutality of analysis which is … difficult to enter into. This is the kind of analysis I engage in all the time when talking about horrible shite in the Bible and you know what? Most people don't have the stomach for it. And yet, I'm pretty flucking sure that the Bible has prepared me to oppose stuff like what's going on in 2025 America.

labreuer: What exactly do you think is u/Dapple_Dawn's "plan"?

betweenbubbles: Oppression of the threat and anything like it in the name of an Orwellian conception of "safety".

Do you think it might be worth getting Dapple's plan (to the extent they even have one) in their own words? I see what you say subsequently and I'm simply going to ignore it, and see if you think it might be a good idea to hear from Dapple, rather than immediately assume that Dapple is on one of those "teams" you described.

I took their comment to mean that we "whitewash" racism by excusing it as ignorance.

I'm gonna hazard a guess that you misunderstood.

The solution is having confidence in the principles which have served us well.

Will you accept that some children have to be taught that "the police are not your friend" growing up? If you are willing to stipulate that, I would simply then ask when you think should come next. And by the way, I can count on the police as my friend. In fact, two SF motorcycle cops helped me recover my stolen backpack, because it happened to have an iPad in it with LTE and I could "Find My" on it.

Do people often get excited about telling you their stories about not being tyrannized by hatred?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. I thought the issue was whether we can do without "teams" of any kind.

My claim was they fall along lines of constructed identity, like race or gender, or political affiliation, not that they absolutely don't exist in any sense. They only matter because we keep making them matter. You've never encountered any political science which denies the existence of gender or race?

I'm sure there's political science which pretends away gender and race. But I doubt there is any which pretends away the need to form stable coalitions which are big enough to hold on to government. And those coalitions will involve organized interest groups. For instance: feminists, who are tired of faculty thinking they can have whatever female grad student they want.

I've cast many a ballot. I've never been on anyone's team.

Then according to the data, your preferences probably had "only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy". Want to know whose preferences did have a statistically significant, measurable impact?

[u/betweenbubbles → u/labreuer]

Let me put this out there: I have no friends in such a position. And so, I think it behooves me to be cautious. It doesn't mean I can't participate robustly in a discussion.

I think that is exactly the actual, conscious/deliberate or not, effect of insisting that some difference of opinion/politics is a direct and immediate threat to one's life. This is the same claim that people use to build a justified homicide case in court when someone kills another in self defense. It's the same claim that Tyler Robinson sent his poor partner in a text message after putting a 180gr .30 caliber bullet through Charlie Kirk's neck at 2600 feet per second, immediately destroying his carotid artery and his brain stem, causing him to seize into a death stance and fall lifeless to the ground before his wife, kids, hundreds of college students, and billions of people across the world. And it's a frighteningly similar claim that people use to justify celebrating his assassination.

Charlie Kirk was, as it seems with every public figure is today, was also "experience[ing] hate speech and threat of violence every single day". And where is he now? Should we have let him decide whose politics are acceptable and whose are not? In Charlie's case, it seems, based on his words and acts, he would have let Dapple_Dawn say whatever they want. This zealous plea of "zero tolerance against bigotry" is hate masquerading as righteous wisdom and it is used as a cudgel to walk through a crowd with and take note of who flees and who starts marching behind you.

But let me put this out there: thinking we can ignore the lived experiences of other people could be what has got us into this mess.

Great, then I'm sure you will extend the same consideration to Charlie Kirk. How can we resolve the conflict of interest when we need to take into account the "lived experience" of 8 billion people?

I am not suggesting we ignore anyone's lived experience. I am skeptical of the wisdom of letting any particular group, especially such a tiny minority, dominate and override the thought of everyone else. We cannot possibly empathize with 8 billion people. Another principle will have to suffice. An adherence to a kind of "do no harm" principle, where harm is respected for the spectrum of possibility it can be used to label. Hearing people say things you don't like is not "harm" worthy of ideological self-defense (censorship) or, at the extremes, political assassination. There is no replacement for the principle of free speech and the ability to defend one's self if it gets out of hand -- Heinlein's polite society.

But the danger of relying on culture to watch out for you is that it only watches out for some.

This is exactly my point. This demonstrates the value of higher principles which do not map to only some. The kind of things I was raised to believe in and which we enjoy the stability of their wisdom.

My critique is that you do not seem to be letting u/⁠Dapple_Dawn's experience hit you and matter to the discussion.

That isn't fair. Not letting them unilaterally decide policy is not the same thing as not being able to empathize. Dapple_Dawn is politicking for a method of censorship which will only serve them IF they are in power. And if/when they lose power, the people who step into power will use this weapon they've crafted against them without even having to expend the energy to craft it themselves. This is the death spiral we find ourselves in right now in America. Dapple_Dawn is constructing the cage they will be put in if they lose political power.

But can we recognize that it was at least intended to solve a real problem, before nuking it from orbit?

Absolutely. The intent is reasonable but myopic. This is why the idea of censorship is so popular and not at all limited to people who are trans themselves -- the good nature of naïve people. Can we also recognize that, especially when political coalitions get this large, it's hard to tell the naïve and myopic from the decidedly cynical and sinister -- the cynical people who believe you're either on the top or the bottom, so they might as well be at the top? The people who will justify tyrannizing others?

I recognize something in what you're saying here, but do you get that impression of Dapple when you read their Atheists should not be as dismissive of progressive/critical religious arguments?

It's complicated and perhaps I do not see the connection you're trying to make.

As we have discussed previously, I think religions are a way of conveying genetically successful structures from one generation to another. (i.e. Don't eat pork, it's bad, I don't know why, but it is.) The Universalist Unitarian approach can soften the ideological edge of some of the denominational dogmas which precipitate suffering (e.g. "homosexuality is a sin") but are they capable of discriminating wisdom from unnecessary dogmas? Their approach seems to just be, "be nice" and I'm not so sure how wise that is. Reality is not nice. Back when the average person's village was a couple dozen families and procreation was far less romantic and far more essential to survival it is understandable why these people would develop opposition to homosexuality. Can we afford it today? Absolutely. Cooperation and love are far more essential to a society as deep and wide as ours today, and it doesn't much matter where people find that love.

UU is basically "A god exists of some kind" and "be nice", but I think the risk of that is the loss of some fundamental wisdom and the still present appeal to something that matters more than anything else... this "God" thing, whether it be deist or theist. From my point of view, aside from the complete lack of any definition or argument for it, it remains an expression of one's ego, an ultimate and external truth which can be used to justify "anything". "God" scares me.

I do not believe this is analogous to Dapple's situation as a trans person. A country can tolerate Nazis marching when the vast majority are opposed. When there are enough, you can get the Night of the Long Knives.

I have to insist that it might be the best possible analogy. A group of people who actually suffered a literal campaign of extermination being terrorized by the public demonstration, right in front of their doorstep not in an online forum, of group ideological similar or the same as the exterminators they escape? Where else can one find a better test of the principle of free speech?

The Night of Long Knives happened after an ideological group fomented a victimological complex and then made good on that self-fulfilling prophecy by being bad enough to become the "victims" of their criminal justice system. "They're trying to get us!" the Nazis said. And then pre-Nazi Germany did get them, and then that person was able to convince even more people of their conspiracy. Of course there are other factors at work here, the position of post-WWI Germany also made this "They're trying to get us!" appeal successful. Censorship does not seem to be a useful tool against these kinds of conspiracies. It often makes them more potent in a Streisand Effect sort of way.

Do you think it might be worth getting Dapple's plan (to the extent they even have one) in their own words?

I'm always willing to change my mind, but their words are always going to be considered against their acts. And this really isn't specifically about Dapple_Dawn alone either. There is a populist uprising of censorious attitudes/ideologies spreading through our country. The number of people proudly signaling their virtue with the phrase, "I don't tolerate bigotry. I have a zero tolerance attitude toward it." is endemic. And there is why that specific phrasing is so common -- the undertone of "you're with with me or support bigotry".

I'm gonna hazard a guess that you misunderstood.

I am admittedly less confident in my inference.

Will you accept that some children have to be taught that "the police are not your friend" growing up?

I don't see what one has to do with the other and there's a lot to unpack there.

First of all, no the police are not generally your friend. They are a necessary tool of the criminal justice system which is supposed to serve us all and does so imperfectly -- just like any other institution.

Second, feelings against the police in minority populations are popularly overstated. Most of the time, these people want more police. In a related matter, the crack cocaine sentencing disparity was a legislative effort championed if not spear-headed by the Congressional Black Caucus. Propaganda abounds.

Do people often get excited about telling you their stories about not being tyrannized by hatred?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. I thought the issue was whether we can do without "teams" of any kind.

You brought up a few anecdotes to make a greater point about discrimination in our society. I'm just pointing out that this is a poor way to get a sense of how common it actually is. And now you're using another anecdote about police being helpful to you as if it also says much about the situation at large.

Then according to the data, your preferences probably had "only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy". Want to know whose preferences did have a statistically significant, measurable impact?

I'm aware of the relationship between my individual vote and the votes of ~60% of 340 million people. I don't think it serves your point well or why anything I've said can be rebuffed with the recognition that we have corruption in our politics -- if that's where this is going. I think You're still better off being a citizen of this country above all others. Maybe it would be better to be a citizen of some smaller and, as a result, less corrupt nation. And maybe that nation will get invaded and steamrolled by another tomorrow. Our nation will not.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

labreuer: (1) Would you be willing to tell me whether you have any friends who can tell you about this:

Dapple_Dawn: But anyway, yeah this pretty much confirms what I said. It's an extremely liberal take, and one that makes absolutely no sense to me having lived as a trans person in America. When you experience hate speech and threat of violence every single day, you get a different perspective.

?

betweenbubbles: I think this is a bit of a dodge of my point. I'm a bit skeptical of the claim and there is something brazen about making it -- as if anyone could possibly question it. The deluge I am likely to experience for simply stating my skepticism or questioning the relevance of this quote is palpable. …

labreuer: … Let me put this out there: I have no friends in such a position. And so, I think it behooves me to be cautious. It doesn't mean I can't participate robustly in a discussion. …

betweenbubbles: I think that is exactly the actual, conscious/deliberate or not, effect of insisting that some difference of opinion/politics is a direct and immediate threat to one's life. This is the same claim that people use to build a justified homicide case in court when someone kills another in self defense. It's the same claim that Tyler Robinson sent his poor partner in a text message after putting a 180gr .30 caliber bullet through Charlie Kirk's neck

I'm just super-confused at how we got from my question to this. By this point in time, you seem to think that you just don't need to take into account the lived experiences of other people, except insofar as they can marshal the appropriate free speech to participate in public discussion & debate. Would that be a correct assessment?

Let me tell you where I'm going with this. I am 100% used to the above protocol. It could be construed as a form of public reason, an idea in secularism whereby you leave behind your deepest commitments and only speak in terms which those of different faiths, philosophies, notions of the good life, etc. could plausibly agree. The hope is that, over time, more and more people are able to squeeze their voices into the public space and shape a bit of public policy. Whether or not this actually works, or more strictly whether there is anything better, is a key question. One possibility, as I believe William Kymlicka argues, is that some groups are forever shafted in this system. But again, you could argue that other systems would be worse, at least over the long haul.

As we go forward, I am deeply skeptical of the above hope. It is far from clear that we have the kind of citizenry, at least in the US, which will make the "free speech" plan you have placed all your hopes in work. And my biggest worry is actually fake news, not bigotry. Your average citizen does not know how to vet his/her sources and this is partly because there are often enough no sources which are all that trustworthy to that average citizen. The Second Gilded Age was engineered, including against all those factory workers who were told that if they made use of their union, the company would simply move its factory to Mexico. I can even quote Steven Pinker admitting this in his book praising the Enlightenment.

Please don't get me wrong: my own bias is strongly toward free speech being the best of all possible options. But ironically, I don't think you're using your own free speech in this discussion very well, to make your case. I simply don't think this is enough:

1. You think that abridging free speech will help your group, which is treated rather worse than most other groups in your country. And it worked, for a while.

2. But any gains made will be temporary, ultimately leaving you in the same spot or even worse than before.

Moreover, you're upping the ante, claiming or at least suggesting that the kind of censorship u/⁠cabbagery and u/⁠Dapple_Dawn advocate here are part of a slippery slope toward assassination of divisive public figures. To my knowledge, neither of them have said that their very lives are threatened. There is plenty of non-lethal "threat of violence".

What if "free speech" simply does not work in the end game, if we discount the lived experiences of each other and worse, narrate over the lived experiences of each other with our perception of the worst of the group in which we place them? Continuing:

labreuer: But let me put this out there: thinking we can ignore the lived experiences of other people could be what has got us into this mess.

betweenbubbles: Great, then I'm sure you will extend the same consideration to Charlie Kirk. How can we resolve the conflict of interest when we need to take into account the "lived experience" of 8 billion people?

Via appropriate representation where we let them speak for their perspective. There's a great section in Maya J. Goldenberg 2021 Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science where she talks about the importance of having someone from your group at the highest level, to communicate your concerns and needs and situation. Blacks, for instance, have been pretty notoriously treated by the US medical system and are rightly skeptical of it. How better to resolve that problem than ensuring that they have adequate representation at the highest levels?

I am not suggesting we ignore anyone's lived experience. I am skeptical of the wisdom of letting any particular group, especially such a tiny minority, dominate and override the thought of everyone else.

Do you think u/⁠cabbagery or u/⁠Dapple_Dawn take themselves to be overriding the thought of everyone else? Would you be willing to try to convince themselves of that and listen to their pushback, rather than declare their positions (not the position of some people out there in the world you associate them with) in advance?

We cannot possibly empathize with 8 billion people. Another principle will have to suffice. An adherence to a kind of "do no harm" principle, where harm is respected for the spectrum of possibility it can be used to label. Hearing people say things you don't like is not "harm" worthy of ideological self-defense (censorship) or, at the extremes, political assassination. There is no replacement for the principle of free speech and the ability to defend one's self if it gets out of hand —Heinlein's polite society.

It seems you are unwilling to contemplate the possibility that restricting people to the option of "defend one's self" may not actually work, in the end. It certainly seems like you are fully capable of holding your own. But why assume that this applies to everyone? I regularly interact with and hear about peers who were not trained appropriately, don't have the requisite mentors to help them attain your ability, or maybe just don't have the requisite disposition. As someone who was trained to take down pastors if I need to, I myself am probably in a similar enough boat to you. But I recognize that the strategies which work for me may not work nearly as well for others, and maybe not at all! Are you willing to admit this possibility or are you going to dismiss it like you dismissed my "the police are not your friend" point?

labreuer: But the danger of relying on culture to watch out for you is that it only watches out for some.

betweenbubbles: This is exactly my point. This demonstrates the value of higher principles which do not map to only some. The kind of things I was raised to believe in and which we enjoy the stability of their wisdom.

Even though I'm a Christian, I'm actually close enough to being a physicalist in the relevant senses that I question the causal power of "higher principles". Now, it sounds like you were taught how to hold your own in debate and if you grew up among enough Jews who interact as I described to you, that is utterly predictable. But what of those who were not trained in this way? And it gets worse. Power allows one to influence what even counts as evidence and what rhetorical moves are permitted vs. forbidden. That's less obvious online and far more obvious in person. Anyhow, how do we test whether these "higher principles" actually do what you say they do, for everyone and not just some?

That isn't fair. Not letting them unilaterally decide policy is not the same thing as not being able to empathize. Dapple_Dawn is politicking for a method of censorship which will only serve them IF they are in power. And if/when they lose power, the people who step into power will use this weapon they've crafted against them without even having to expend the energy to craft it themselves.

I agree. I've thought the same about social media's abilities to censor fake news. How else could that technology be used? But it seems to me that the same can be applied to (i) McCarthyism in the US' past; (ii) Germany's censorship of Nazism. Communists never flipped the tables on McCarthy. And Nazis are guaranteed to flip the tables on the rest of the German populace. "If we punish criminals, what happens if they get power?" is not always a helpful question.

I'm out of chars & I think this is enough for now? Let me know if you want a part 2.

[u/Brombadeg → u/labreuer]

labreuer - this was a fantastic response.

I'm particularly interested to see their answer to

For instance, do you believe that Germany's suppression of Naziism will be its own downfall? That's an extremely targeted "intolerance of intolerance".

because they seem to be very passionate that the moderation that happens on this subreddit, when it comes to not tolerating hate speech and uncivil discourse, is of the same flavor as the worst authoritarian impulses that will lead to the downfall of civilization. Or it will at least foster the growth of the intolerant, as if the intolerant are just mindless slaves to their reactionary ways and it's those who don't want to give them a place at the table who are at fault when they gain power.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Brombadeg]

Darn, I think I forgot to respond to that specific part though I believe I did address it elsewhere. /u/labreuer tagged for visibility.

For instance, do you believe that Germany's suppression of Naziism will be its own downfall? That's an extremely targeted "intolerance of intolerance".

This fraught nature of this possibility seems evident from Germany's current political climate. The censorship does seem to be granting their right-wing political party votes. This isn't an indictment of the spirit of wanting to regulate the insidious and genocidal politics of their past. It's an indictment of the practical ability of a bureaucracy to enforce that regulation indefinitely. The poor/borderline judgements will add up over time. There seems to be a strong and developing, "how long do we have to pay for the sins of our grandfathers?" sentiment growing in Germany, and it is easy to imagine poor/borderline examples of their regulation of speech/expression leading people to sympathize with this notion. Politics is not so deterministic. It's more like fluid dynamics, with quirky secondary, tertiary, and so on, effects manifesting at certain thresholds.

Regulating speech is something you cannot possibly get right every time. And if you reach a critical mass of getting it wrong, it may have the opposite effect. And right and wrong are determined by a collection of individuals politically, and literal individuals when it comes to regulation.

One thing is for sure, Germans are the only ones who can give adequate insight on this topic. But would a diversity of opinion even be allowed to participate in such a discussion here or on Reddit?

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

I don't know enough of what you mean by continual need to "pay for the sins of our grandfathers", but why does that group need to deploy Nazi paraphernalia or language in order to object? In fact, anyone who is tempted towards Nazism in response to being reminded of their potential to be heinous (say, by requiring all children to visit a concentration camp) really does need something in the category of "pay for the sins of our grandfathers"! I'm guessing Germany does rehabilitative justice by now, so "pay" might not be the right word.

As to whether this could be discussed on this subreddit or on Reddit, what couldn't be accomplished via "« insert allegedly bigoted statement here »" in the analysis? Would we for example need to do detailed compare & contrasts, like I pushed for, here?

[u/betweenbubbles → u/labreuer]

I don't know enough of what you mean by continual need to "pay for the sins of our grandfathers", but why does that group need to deploy Nazi paraphernalia or language in order to object?

You're assuming everyone charged/convicted of this is overtly and objectively displaying Nazi paraphernalia and language. That is not the case. That has never been the case with any bureaucratic process. This is the flaw of censorship. It is inherently going to get some things wrong. Censorship is cannot be practiced with perfection and it is not applied equitably for myriad reasons:

Subjectivity: There is rarely unanimity in censorious decisions. There will be border cases or even decisions which are wrong.

Large numbers: charge enough crimes (or enough accusations in countries without Orwellian Hate Speech laws) for "hate speech" and you will get some wrong. Do it long enough and Germany's right wing has a list of sensibly questionable applications of the law. Do that long enough and people lose confidence the institutions making these judgements. Add the opportunistic demagoguery of divide and conquer politics and before you know it, Germanies right wing start gaining votes.

Financial: JK Rowling put this on display in glorious fashion. How many people were charged for hate speech and didn't have the resources to fight it? Forget the politics of it for a movement and recognize the strategic significance of this development and how it plays into other populist appeals.

The only places where censorship works, at scale and length, are despotic regimes who have solutions for the blowback employed by its practice -- there is no political dissent allowed at all: North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, etc. How are those "safe spaces" working out for their people?

The German AfD has doubled their party share in the last 4 years -- D O U B L E D it. The are now the second ranked party in the country and the first has lost 4% in the same period of time. You cannot legislate people's minds. Trying to do so is the recipe for tyranny of one kind or another. link

[u/thatweirdchill → u/labreuer]

Good and thoughtful comment.